Theo Verelst Diary Page

Latest: 11 january 2001

I've decided after good example to write some diary pages with toughts
and events.

Oh, in case anybody fails to understand, I'd like to remind them
that these pages are copyrighted, and that everything found here may not
be redistributed in any other way then over this direct link without my
prior consent. That includes family, christianity, and other cheats. The
simple reason is that it may well be that some people have been ill informed
because they've spread illegal 'copies' of my materials even with modifications.
Apart from my moral judgement, that is illegal, and will be treated as
such by me. Make as many references to these pages as you like, make hardcopies,
but only of the whole page, including the html-references, and without
changing a iota or tittel...

And if not? I won't hesitate to use legal means to correct wrong
that may be done otherwise. And I am serious. I usually am. I'm not sure
I could get 'attempt to grave emotional assault' out of it, but infrigement
on copyright rules is serious enough. And Jesus called upon us to respect
the authorities of state, so christians would of course never do such a
thing. Lying, imagine that.

Jan 18, 2000

Can a deeply religious person be Attorney General?

That is a blunt copy from a
web site
qouting 'USA today'. The interpretation of the question
(as in 'let me explain the background of this') evolves not
only around a conviction with results, but also around
information and its use. That my statement, because there is
otherwise not enough question at stake. For presidents and
other leaders, similar logic holds, but why couldn't a religeous
person be like a computer in law: laws, jurisprudence (the
trick of course), case data in, response out. Somewhere in the
process of judgement one can expect a computer type of approach not
work, but why, and where exactly?

I remember reading about computerized processsing of legal
cases, for lets say the equivalents of parking and speeding
tickets (not that grave in holland, luckily) I seem to remember.
It seems logical that at least when the laws are clear and
to the point enough, an intelligent logical system such as
a computer can be fed all information, and deliver satisfactory
judgements. Maybe not as appealing to the imagination, maybe
not as 'human' sounding, but strictly honest, as for as the law is,
of course.

Without going into the (also christian) meaning of lets say
Moses' and Gods' law, the idea of having a law that rules life is
meaningfull. I'm sure that the greek word 'nomos' in new testament,
means something like 'mode of conduct', not 'code', but sort of like
what is considered appropriate behaviour.

Lets see. Suppose that it is possible to by and large specify the
main behavioural limits (as electrical engineer, that is almost
normal design language) all humans are supposed to adhere to.
Then in principle there is no problem amoung humans to assume
they can then be used to make a working, just system. Two problems
are easily discerned, one it may be they fail, two, the law may
not indicate enough what to do in unforseen circumstances.

This being a bit of theoretical angle, in practice we also
assume that the boundaries of law are, just as in many
engineering problems, usually the more interesting areas,
and probably the most profitable ones.

First a larger picture, as I was reading the whole quote.
Can someone convinceme against better judgement that at least
certain american presidents can appearently be put forward
(though most probably not necessarily chosen) solemny on
the basis of a name, plus or minus a double u? Thank you,
that would be, but it is not likely. Their intelligence would
have to be good enough, their reputation in certain ways,
though I donno exactly which ones, and some other properties
must be up to standard, the in this case republicans must
be willing to put the forward (on vote attraction grounds?),
but further it would seem that in this case, though doubtlessly
worse can happen, the essence of the their capabilities as
person, leader (or servant), etc. is subdued to such a base
consideration as a name.

Not that that is world deranging, but for normal persons this
is too clearly a way of living that is completely alien.
In fact, I pbserved similar behaviour in my previous work
environment, and I just can't see why a name game should be
more relevant than capacities, qualities, suitabilities,
vision for all I care. It means the problem of 'sin', my
terminology, on purpose and I think to the point,
is incredible enough to make such considerations rule.
HOW that is, is a fundamentally important question, and
I'd almost say thank God it wasn't over-all like that
when constitutions and state foundations were made that
I even still benefit from.

Assuming the world is an evil place, in need of lets call it
salvation from evil, evil intent, power from criminals,
evil people and in the spiritual doubless from evil spirits,
what can we expect? As persons, humans, official christians,
personal believers, agnosts, haters of faith as it is know,
anyone.
At least for certain that it is a troubling and worrying idea
that one of the military, economically and ideologically
most powerfull collection of states on earth is led
by a person put forward which such clear considerations.

It may be argued that everyoneis evil anyhow, so that
we may put some general slaves forward to do the dirty or not
state representation jobs (as the romans also argued at times),
but then still the idea alone that than no better can be
found than from a whole 'best choice' collective where someone
with a 'name' can randomly be selected on the basis of just
that is short of amazing.

More synth, still

Now what am I doing relishing in toughts about my (mainly older)
synths. At least there are more people than the 160.000 or
so that own a dx7 that must have an interest in its 6 operator
fm synthesis sounds, considering that the 'sound engine'
is available again also as
physical plug-in
for new synthesizer/workstations.

I found archives with 10.000 sounds for the machine in zip files,
which probably countain a significant portion of my favorites
(maybe a few hundred high quality sounds), and it is completely
worth it to still play them, though I do wonder what oscilators
with more freedom in programming, a bit tighter sine-response
(the additive sounds I made also on the improved tx802/dx7II
were still not good enough as lets say drawbar replacement),
and maybe 8 or 12 or so, with interconnections (instead of
layering two independent voices) would produce, I think some
of the for instance GS-1 type abba sounds are interesting to
hear from an instrument, probably like that. Try 'eagle' for
sounds coming from I dont know what synth to be at least sure
that very long ago most contemporary riffs and samples
were beaten in strength, lets say, not to speak about beauty
preferences. I cant currently put mpeg or realplayer samples
on easily, when I can I'll put on some examples of the reasons
for being into synthesis in general, and for instance DX7
type of stuff in particular. There are many sounds and
types of noises that many never hear, and they are worth
hearing and playing with.

Making a DX7 type of instrument, preferably even extended myself
(digitally) is without question in principle possible with current
technology, a reassuring thought, but in practice may not be easy,
and the interesting part is where it is merely a matter of
programming, and not so much anymore of lack of computer
horse power, or optimizing with that in mind. The term synthesizer
programming in this case means using a computer program right,
which itself must first be written.

When the computer program is available, its like adjusting about
150 virtual, or software, knobs to the right value when
programming a 'normal' DX-7 from scratch.
Lets say each know is a slider on a computer screen, like on the
side of a netscape of word window, than you accurately (within
a few milimeter) adjust about a hundred of them, and then
you get a certain sound. That looks hard, but sampling enthousiasts
would know that than it is at least possible to make a certain
sound appear fromall possibilities, because for a sound of
lets say a second long (mono), they'd have to draw accurately
about 40 thousand slider positions in a little graph. And
for a little change, they'd normally need to start all over
again.

A synthesizer, on the other hand, has knobs with meaning, which
allow one to make changes to a sound which are understood by
most programmers. For instance, the 'attack' knob sets the
cresendo in the sond right, low value: the sounds comes up slow,
high value, the sound starts straight away when a key or
a chord is pressed. A fashionable enough effect is to turn
a filter knob on a sound, to make the sound duller or brighter,
comparable with bass and treble controls on an amp, except
that a filter is prefered where not just the amount of
boost or cut in a frequency range is adjusted, but where
the affected frequencies can also be selected.

On many modern mixing consoles, parametric equalizers are
available, which let one change the working frequencies
of a filter, and how much effect it has. For instance, one
knob my be turned down to cut high frequencies, and another
then can be 'played with' to decide how big a part of the
high end of the spectrum can be attenuated. A sort of
'sweeping' sound is the result, which can be pleasing enough,
though not that special. Audio reproduction type of use of these
filters is to beef up a certain part of a sound, maybe
to compensate for a recordings' lack of high end content, or cut
certain portions of the spectrum, for instance to remove
a specific hum-signal, or to compensate for an acoustical
resonance.

In almost any analog synthesizer, a quite 'heavy' type of such
a filter is used, with not a 'bell curve' characterteristic,
such as to cut or boast a limited frequency range, but
a low-pass (and regularly other types as well, this is just
the most commonly used one) characteristic behaviour.
One knob does the same as many mixers' frequency control dials
do, but then as if two or 4 of those types of filter were put
t work at the same time, that is a lot 'fatter' or heavier sounding.
And, that knob can also be controlled by electronics, to
let the filter frequency change controlled and rapidly for
each note played, which makes for a lot of an instruments'
spectral characteristics. Often a natural sound starts, pretty soon
reaches its brightest part, and gradually becomes duller, which
is in a synthesizer automatically possible.

Of course this a crude way of shaping a sound, simply
all higher frequencies are cut (usually at 1/16, being 24 decibels
for each octave above the cutoff frequency), meaning
apart from some very loud high frequency components there
simply is nothing left in the high end of the spectrum.
Because of this crude spectrum partitioning, the resulting
sounds have a warm and 'fat' character, that is if the filter
works solid. For analog types of sounds, that is desirable
and sonically pleasing, for other types of sounds, it is
a clear limitation. So we need more knobs and sound processing
or generating means to cover other types of sounds.

Sampling a natural sound, lets say a cello, is a method to
have a computer or digital instrument (basically a certain
type of computer system with good enough sound-card equivalent
and a instrument-keyboard, except for some special ones)
reproduce natural, acoustical instruments. Sampling means
a little recording is made of a sound, like on a tape or
a wav file, which can be played back at various rates,
that is at various pitches to make various notes. The disadvantages,
apart from quality considerations,
being that its always the same sound (and our ears can register this
quite well already the second time the same sample is used),
and that the sound cannot be changed at all. A sample is a sample,
and that is it. Most modern sampler instruments do allow for
sound changes by a similar filter element as electronical
synths have, though my experience is they rarely reach the
same standard of powerfullness, that is they are often not
so good. But they do serve the purpose of again changing
a sounds spectral qualities, in the same way as described.

FM synthesis is a completely different way of making sounds,
there is no filter in the signal path, and there are no samples
used at all, except generators which produce sine waves to start
with. These generators drive eachother in 1 of 32 possible
constellations, by changing eachothers frequencies very quickly.
Mathematically, it can be shown that then the spectrum they
produce is governed by what are called 'bessel' functions,
which in short dictate harmnics in a wiggly sort of way depending
on the amont of modulation of one generator driving the other.
In very general view: the more modulation, the more spectral
(harmonic) content is generated, but in a irregular way. That
us for an amount of modulation of 2, there are more harmonics,
but for instance the 3d harmonic may be present for an amount
of 1, while almost gone for an amount of 2.

Hard enough, as most know, dx synths are hard to program. At
some point yamaha tried to get around that by pretending this
process could be simplified by having only a few knobs,
resembling the knobs affecting an analog synths' signal path,
which simply doesn't allow the same richness in variation or
range of control that one has when all the 150 sliders are
available.

What do all these sliders do? When we remember the ADSR generator,
the attack, decay, sustain and release portions of a sound
are adjusted by 4 sliders: the first sets the speed the sound
starts up, the second the rate at which it falls back to the sustain
level (a continuous level as long as a key is pressed),
and the release set how rapidly a sound fades away after a
key or chord of keys is released.

In a dx7 or similar instrument, each generator of 6 has such
sliders, seperately for each of the 6, and in fact with 2 more
sliders to split up the decay section, and allow the
generators final level to be not silent. That means 6x6 is
36 sliders to control, and they affect not just what one
generator does, but when an generator modulates another,
it affects the spectrum of the overall sound, in a mathematical,
quite complicated fashion. That is why the sonic variation,
the various sound spectrums that can be generated with
such an fm synthesizer is considerable. And the main point
again being: it can change considerably every millisecond the
sound is activated.

Sound Studios

My experience with the essentials of sound and recording
studio equipment and operation dates back from my early
years with a cassette recorder, microphone, tape recorders
and my own mixer units. This being not even near professional,
has set my mind for almost all important aspects of modern
sound studios and their use. What are they? It starts with
acoustics, and microphone techniques. Then there is the
electronic signal, the quality and use of recording, mixing,
and effect possibilities (echo springs and chambers to start
with in my case). Subsequently there is (tape) editing and
dubbing (mixing tracks with other tracks on tape,
and recording it on yet another) techniques.
And finally mixing down, making a master recording,
also suitable for reproduction, the sound reproduction,
and general quality considerations therein.

Oh, and eh, of course the musicians making the music, lets not
forget that. That only started when I at 15 or so made my own
keyboard, and started recording with it and a a few years later
commercial keybards and synths on reel to reel decks and multitrack
equipment.

About 7 years later, I acquired stage experience in the
pop area (and also jazz), and felt more than at home enough
with most types of then modern synths and playing styles,
and I regularly used various types of studio equipment
besides my own (see previous diary pages), 8 track reel to
reel, various mixers and PA systems, effect equipment, smpte
(tape sync for sequencers), and of course computer systems
with music programs such as sequencers. And of course microphones
and such, though I knew about multicables, balanced signals and
mixers already at highschool.

What's the fun of all that? Seriously for me it is not
the most major fun in the world to sit down in or 'have' a studio
with all those impressive (regulary agreed on by me) pieces
of equipment and their joyous or whatever little blinking lights
on them. A stage or rehearsal 'studio' with good enough equipment
and preferably musicians is more like it. Studios should make it
possible to make music, maybe 'produce' a recording that is
supposed to be hear often and therefore deserves to get proper
attention, but that sort of activity, where I have engaged in
and am more than knowledgeable enough about, is not usually
my hobby. That's more like work.

Studios suck? No, the space I could call studios of various
kinds certainly didn't, though that is of course also a 'scene'
matter, and certainly not mainly an equipment and space matter.
But still, just all the right equipment together in a nice
enough (in hard to determine measures) space doesn't necessarily
get me going. It doesn't thrill me by itself, can even put me off.
Playing artist, are we? Not realy, it's just the way it is,
I had quite some studio type of equipment available over quite
some years of up to quite high quality, and the end of the story
is that apart from the synths and good effects, I'd not regularly
use all the recording and computer equipment.

They are not instruments, studio equipment. An effect, like a
reverb is a good addition to an instrument. A good amp and
speakers is always good. But sequencers (computer recording
programs for MIDI data) and recording equipment is just that:
it records and plays back hopefully what you put in, and thats
it. They aren't musically challenging or active, normally.
They may be a challenge to use right, and to combine instruments
with, but even that is not the nicest thing in the world,
its like a wordprocessor is to writing a piece: a good one
needs a good keyboard and screen, and hopefully it can
contribute by cut-and-past, layout tools, and a thesaurus and
spell checker, but that's normally it: it doesn't do the writing
job. Sorry steinberg? (a maker of sequencers and the likes)
Not realy, in fact I spend about 200 dollars at the time I
bought my atary ST to buy one of their first, comparisonwise
quite rudimentary, sequencers. After all, wordproceccors do sell,
and oe may find it hard to live without.

And of course the comparison doesn't completely hold, maybe
video or magazinf editing is a better comparison, but it
is important to know and honour the difference between a
piece of equipment and valid musical se of it.

Look at a certain portion of current DJ's the try to extend
their applicatio area to musicianship: a mixer isn't an isntrument,
guys, freaking about with mixirs can be total fun at home,
but normally not many of your friends would come and listen.
Certainly not if you call filter sweeps music. Buy a keyboard,
learn the bleus (or whatever) and try again.

Dishonest? No. Eery DJ knows music has efffect, meaning, and
even possibly a message. That makes it impossible to get away
from the notion that there is an ectivity going on reproducing
it that is like being either showmaster or musician, or somewhere
in between. But a leader of ceremony doesn't qualifu as musician,
unless they'd make music. Why all these comments? Because I
don't agree with a music world where it is habitual to take
talent-challenged faces, let them make hardly music, and
swamp youth, elders, and all in between with these products.

I'm not sure about the year and the international renown
of Gruppo Sportive, a band I regularly saw in highschool concerts,
but I know form instance
"Disco realy made it (it empty and I hate it)" was quite
popular. Of course that is a simular thought about 20 years
ago, put in a good song. And of course there's disco I liked
more than a bit, and still like to dance to.
Nice (female) background singers I remember, too, but
the music (Sportivo's that is) I can still hum. Fun.

Studio project bands must have had a hard time, I think,
at least in certain ways. A year to produce one album
or CD of less than an hour of compressed, alive, meaninfull
music. I knew at least a few of them did this stuff, I'm
not sure about the financial picture of all of them. Abba,
being at the time the biggest export product from sweden,
simiply decided to built their own, the first fully digital
mixing and mastering studio (probably not the best, currently),
and other major acts probably could afford to rent a major
studio for many months, but moneywise these factories
are not easy: tons and tons of money, easily.

The beatles probably had less quality multitrack equipment at
their disposal than I had with the Teac 244. I'm sure that I've
never done as many tracks or overdubs as on a queen album,
on the other hand. I guess its a good thing quality enough
studio equipment is available for many musicians with good
enugh gig-life, such as adats (videio recorder based digital
multitrack recorders for a few thousand), cheap effect equipment
like Alesis reverbs and effects, and of course much better
and more powerfull PA systems, though in fact a good guitar
amplifier stll isn't very cheap in comparison with decades
ago.

Now lets see, does my opinion mean that these studio efforts
are in vain. Obviously not. That I'd prefer a good synth, lets
say a top Kurzweil, with a set of good headphones? No. As everyone
knows, synths don't work good with headphones, and music
must resound, preferably at least reasonably loud. Works better.
is even biblical...

A synth with a good amplifier and speakers? Of course. A nice
room ? Evidently. Some good effect equipment ? Makes it nice,
as far as the synth hasn't got that built in already.
More then one instrument with good mixer and the works? Of
course, when you're up to it (electronical organ registration
experience ?), but what does that mean: the works?
For jsut playing around: a sequencer? Had one for years,
fun enough, completely professional products possible, but
major fun? At times. Not all too often. A mixer with many knobs?
Prefered, but to play around with? I'd rather have them programmable.
And the whole thing should available night and day, of course.

I read an
article in Sound On Sound
a few years ago (its a paper magazine, too) about the
recording of Alanis' 'Jagged little pill' album (only, what is
it, 25 million or so copies sold). Mainly, we a singer
(good microphone needed), a band (lots of em, or do we plug them in
a mixer?), and synthesizers driven by computers, somehow mixed
togehter, sound and music programmed by ?
Mainly a good microphone, completely affordable ADAT recorders,
good amp, some automated mixer I would distrust by nature
(knowing that automation probably is going to degrade the
signal, normally, unless it is completely mechanical),
a set of synths I know, except it seems they're not mentioned in the
web-article, they are in the magazine, and even cubase, which
I know quite well, is in the picture. In short: this
very popular recording got togehter in a quite short time,
on what could almost be called budget equipment setup, though
that is not completely justified terminology, certainly
not for mics and some other things.

What is a studio recording about, sort of official idea?
When instruments are acoustic, drums, guitar, orchestra, the
first thing is to use good microphones, and to put them in the
right place, set the instruments up such that they give acoustically
pleasing recording results (possibly acoustically dead, at least from
from eachother, to make each instrument appear only on its
own channel, not on its neighbours signals, by damping
pannels), make sure the levels in the mixer and especially
to the recording tape or digital input is right, and
of course that all electrical connections honour impedance, signal
level, and disturbance absence demands.

Than the actual recording can be done in many alternative ways,
the simplest being that the band or orchetra in the studio
starts playing after all channels have been adjusted,
the recorder fed with tape and cleaned, and the record button has
been pushed on all relevant channels. The other extreme is to
procede by recording each instrument one at the time, maybe
even per phrase of playing, and only dubbing the instrument
in to the appropriate section of the multitrack tape for
each little addition, and thus adding up all little pieces
until the whole recording takes shape.

There are ample examples of the various approaches, the queen
albums I mentioned for instance contain a lot of techniques,
I don't know how much 'plug and all play together' takes are
important. Walter Carlos' 'swithced on bach' is completely made
by producing little pieces of tape (literally) and
cutting them and splicing them together, and then copying the
results on another piece of intermedeate tape recording, and
so on. Extremely laborious and technically challenging (that prooved
worth it). Some modern products are made by having a sequencer,
with added hard disc recording pumping digital audio streams
directly into a master DAT recorder, possibly without
any analog signal at all (needed for voices, though), modern
synths also tend to have digital (spdif) outputs, that can
directly be digitally mixed. I do have fundamental problems with
this, most effectively summed up by the need of the term 'dithering',
I'll elaborate on this further on.
Most orchestra recordings honour mainly the all-start-playing-and-record
paradigm, for obvious reasons, though I'm sure overdubs are regular
to redo faulty or imperfect instrument takes.

There is a very good reason for the latter approach. Listen to
Jackson's
Body and Soul
I think it was, it has in the booklet a comment on it being recorded
mainly in one take in some sort of hall with nice enough
reverberation. That is musicians at work in a life type of performance,
that puts a band on tape. Now take some nearly random modern
piece of maybe computer-engineered (if its worth the term)
song with heavy and maybe expensive synths and effects,
and hopefull carefully chosen sample material. Hear the
difference?

And again, that's not being bitter or old-farthish (I probably
can beat most of them content-wise, musically and certainly technically
too, I don't need to prove myself in the area), but it is important
in my opinion. And it was personal experience over years for me, too.
I had a multitrack and myself to play against, even to sing
against, though mainly that has not been given up for
public consumption, except a few good products at the time.
I at times did take a day or two to record and mix only
one 3 to 5 minute song, and the results, in spite of the
quite very budget equipment were worth the MAR metal casette
they ended up on, and the dolby-C. But oh my, the studio
boredom you have to fight to get there. And the creativily that
needs to be channeled to make an interesting song from
the playing of one person with himself. Not fun enough for
more than maybe 50 recordings or so, tops. And I had the equipment.

What was fun ? That it worked. That the book knowledge I acquired
many years before when I was galancing at the studio and
recording technique books was worth it and working.

And putting those synth up together (see pictures on the
previous page), as many together as I had (up to three, and
in a short period even 4 keyboards at a time), connect
them togehter, and program them for good and/or fat sounds,
and let those speakers work. At times my more than profesional
synth setup (the dx7/rev7/tx802/dw8000 combinations are known
enough definately not childs play) looked like a non-miserable
electronic theatre organ, and I even built a volume pedal
to feed this 'illusion'. But then with synths, with a lot
more sliders than a hammond, and a lot less resonating coils,
unfortunately. I did like the human league, Yazoo, jean michel
jarre, depeche mode (I'll limit myself to the album I had
'a broken frame'), and kraftwerk (i had three actual lps
I think, absolute top: pocket calculator, try that yourself) idiom.

I didn't have money for all to many records, but I'm sure my main
sort of interest and little short of admiration went to
a rose royce album I had from a sale, fresh cut, with for
instance 'love don't live here anymore'. The synths on that stuff,
the skilled, funky, sort of general soul containing playin g
on those tracks, that was more my musical aim, I guess.

In certain languagem I think I don't agree with in this context,
but it does say it, I've had quite some strong enough synths
and my amps and speakers were not too miserable either, but I
never got that synth-type f bass right in a satisfactory
sense on the gear I owned. And now on my 'on the floor on
cardboard' grossly oversized speakers with amp, my
286 programmed analog synth simulator and my 10 MHz Z80 based
synth computer, damn, it DOES work. The term is wrong, its just
to indicate that it sort of got to me on second or 3d thought.
The equipment I had wasn't the cheapest. Realy, it was
good for lets say in the 10k$ range, yet I never got
that sort of analog synth stuf right enough. I played the
son gin a band even, that's not the prob, and a DX or
the korg over a big enough PA does make the lick sound right
enough, that too isn't the prob. But at sub-room level getting
the sort of hard to phrase lick sound with good enough
oomph in it, that is recent. And I'm picky: I am NOT
making an electronic organ here. Yes, there are amazing resonances
in the speakers laying around as they do, but no, they are
not responsible for the resonance in the sound I PROGRAMMED
that. Ha. And it works at a third interval, a fifth a seventh,
even an octave higher it still works right.

And that is without modulation in the sounds, with
only one (not multi) sample, simple filter EG, no
non-linearities (except from sampling), with 9 bits
DA, no LFO's, two virtual oscilators, and no freaky or
advanced sample processing. Yesterday I loaded a
ready made sample in my harmonic oscilator bank, to
try again to make a harmonically fuller sound.
That works. It does take some efforts, those 5ths take good
amplitude ratio, and the filter characteristic must
be well used on the samples intrinsic filter effects,
and the envelope must make a nice attack decay curve
work, but then: yummy, or something, wonderfull enough
sounds, even for monophonic lines. I should extend my
memory cranck up the clock (the current processor is stuck
at 10 instead of 35 MHz) or add some hardware (don't have
many counters left), and produce some polyphonic multisamples
with this stuff, I would dare to say that if I add some
good enough effects it would sell as contemporary
synth sound. Even without the physical modeling.

Why? Minus the obvious need for programming the sound, I
do think it is essential to do the digital signal path
right. Even though I sinned, for instance the filter control
signal update must be good enough, I think the interpolation
in my case ends up with once per 8 or 16 samples update,
and I'm sure from trying that the resonance, the cutoff,
anf the sample accuracy and harmonic content of the
generators are essential ingredients. I learned in highschool
when I did additive synthesis on the trs80 that getting
the sample timing right is important, and that it is
generally stupid no to rely on multiple-of-2 sample loop
lengths, and accurate sample generators, taking these
considerations serious, and that a reconstruction filter
must not be relied on, that easily takes the strength right out
of a sound.

It's a pity I at the time didn't think of putting four
butterworth filter simulation sections on a row in a digital
simulation (I did 2d graphics iterative iir updating of
difference equations, which is not that different), and
feed it around in feedback. Now I learn it would have made
major sounds so much later.

What's with all the analog circuit ideas, the pulse modulation,
multiplying converters, that stuff? Thus far I'm using my 8 bit
fast DA with satisfaction, its noise figures seem up to
maybe a direct over 16 bit extension, its speed wasn;t realy challenged
yet in the audio range, and multiplicativity over clock driven
pulse width modulation has been tested with a 16-counter
tdm (tri state on/off) test setup, which attenuates its
expected 24 dB range just fine, I just didn't have a chance yet
to make my circuit a bit more up to standard, its to wieldy
with wires all over the place to breadboards, and compensating
for lack of parts. And it may by nice to do a sample replay
dedicated unit as soon as I can affort some additional HC
logic chips. Doing that in 16 bit, with a major
memory ( I'd now have until 128kbyte, using only 8, though
I also have a number of 32k flash rams waiting to be tested),
in the 100MHz range or so should do some very decent sample
reproduction and partial generator stuff. With the
right parts and a stack of good breadboards a few days of
fun enough work. I did keep a 300 watt switched computer supply,
and surplus of general purpose pcb lying around, just in case.

I should do the AD converter too, but software is not up to
high sampling speeds (maybe in delta modulation mode),
the comparator I have but the breadboard space is crowded
and rich in disturbance, and I didn't feel like it yet, I'd like
to do that stuff in 16 bit or so, with the right equipment,
and then see is compression is possible with effective 16 bit
feedtrough without limiting dynamic range over a major
part of the compression work are to less than lets say 85 dB or so.
That to at least do the gain control on a digitally controlled
mixer circuit decent, and double its use as analog
signal path in a digitally controlled compressor operation.
with very sub-44k1-sample update rate. That should make it
a good product, for certain, and more useable as PA system mixer.
Space for research.
Without an osciloscope, and as it is, that is pretty ambitious.

Contemporary and anchient 'apostle'-ship ?

One of the most well known, oldest, easily obtained, and at
least historically relevant if not essential books is of course
the canon of hebrew and greek documents we call bible
(of course just meaning 'book'). In it, the latter part is
completely written by what the authors themselves repeatedly
bring formward as 'apostles', greek for 'sent one'.

What does that mean? From what I learned (I took it for serious
doctrine at the time), apostles were apart from (alledgedly)
sent by God, also a certain type of person, with person
structure adequate for leading and fullfilling the role they had.

I should verify that at the sources myself, which might be
interesting, but for certain apostles were given the higest
leading position in the times of the new testament writing,
followed by prophets (not to be confused with the old testament
concept we call the same), then teachers, etc. (see Ephesians).
And of course a 'sent one' would need to be sent, to be indeed
actually sent, that is obvious. That a) assumes there is a God
that can effectuate such a sending, and b) that He indeed
did so.

Were apostles consciously unmarried? In fact that is not true,
Peter for instance was married probably already before he followed
Jesus around (in the flesh, that is), but none of them seems
to have led a family life, or at least none of them writing
or written about in the new testament was in a married family
live as many have us believe christians are supposed to
live in. Not that all christians are apostles, in fact
relatively few are probably given for that, but still, there
are considerable differences between what various brands
of so-called christians (ranging from conservatives with a tag
through bad old catholicism) try to tell us and what scripture
clearly indicates (christian expression on purpose, were
I think I can get away with, and which is explicit
enough language in a direction I think may well be needed).

Let's see Peter WAS married, and did NOT lead a family life,
and most probably did NOT live in celebacy, and CERTAINLY
didn't preach it. Paul does seem to have strong feelings
about various people, certainly NOT of a homosexual (strange word)
nature, and he was certainly not indicating women weren't important.
Another (I think its Jude) addresses a woman like a teacher,
and Jesus himself was most probably sexually without a woman,
emotionally at times at least not, NOT proclaiming his own
mother god, NOT a motherfucker, and not a son of a bitch or
bastard with no respect for family type of relations, but
CERTAINLY licing in almost complete denial of their
relevance for his life. Period, sort of.

And it is still forbidden by old testament (jewish) law to
dress up in woman clothes or to consciously make oneself
exteriorwise a sacrifice to some demon god. And the summary of the
main law, quoted in quite reliable enough greek by Jesus, is
still: I am the Lord thy God, , you shall have NO OTHER GODS BEFORE
ME. Not money. Not a system. Not a position. Not another person, even.
Not glory. Certainly not a demon. Not the world. Not a law that
isn't his. No other god.

In greek the word for 'demon', in my language sort of a spirit
without a body from who knows where, certainly not of human
origin, and always evil (and usually stupid, and deceased human
beings never return in our lives, also not as deamons, never, see OT),
is used for
'god', 'demon', and some other meanings (I looked it up but forgot).
But also for 'god', so when paul refers to 'the unkown god' he
is into a territory where deamons at least also could play a role in.
I'm not sure how it is in general, but all the greek 'gods' of
course weren't actual gods, and hopefully would only serve
as idea placeholders for certain types of behaviour, certain
concepts, which is of course certainly true.

Now supposing the Holy Spirit is a spirit and a person, as is clear
enough in new testament sense 'the holy spirit led philip...',
'but the holy spirit stopped us from going to asia..' (see
for instance acts), there is major possibility for confusion,
error, worship of deamons, and the evil and sour fruits
of this. If as a christian I am supposed to live according to
Gods will, and the Holy Spirit has the possiblity to communicate,
than whta happens? And how is that with MY person. What is the
risk ? I've been in various 'christian' congregations where
I positively sure people live after the will and maybe words
of deamons. That's at least ugly. An devil. A demon is NOT
going to produce blessing. And in the name of Jesus or Gods
words living a life led by demons is horrible, damning, not
just for oneself, but also for listeners. The same holds for
leaders, it is not written for nothing that prophesies (that
were often enough public, and as utterance amoung other believers)
need to be tested. Not to see if the Holy Spirit making
a (real) christian person produce an utterance by speaking the
words in his or her mind (with foaming mounts, falling on the
floor, and lets say generally becoming an insult to the real God),
can be cought in a mistake, but simply to find out wether the
source is indeed the real, divine, holy spirit.

When people think they are listening to God, it would better be.
And mind you, there is only one God, and one Holy Spirit, not
a whole panteon of them, available by choice of lie or something.
When a person thinks or teaches that, they are clearly in
error and not following the God of the Jews and the new
testament christians alike, who is only God, one God, eternal,
almighty, infallible (He that is, not his apostles), and
never changing.

I think the greek knew the difference. I'm sure they knew
about (king) David, old testament prophets and their fruits,
and when I read Homer, probably they knew quite well what
the importance was, and what maybe even underlies quite
a bit of their fancy panteon construction.

Apstoles in NT times preached love, even literally, though its
meaning is well defined, Jesus himself calls it a positive
side when certain people have hatred in their harts for
certain types of evil, refutation and rebukal is in the
picture, as is social buildup and even the concept of
'Gods familily', though that is basically His business,
not human beings making Him the goddamned, goddamning
godfather of their own little tower of babylon making.